Pakistan's Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani speaks to the media in Skardu, northern Pakistan on April 18, 2012. (Faisal Mahmood/Reuters)

Pakistan and America have had some tough years. When President Obama
first took office, Pakistan had just returned to democracy after years
of military rule, and many were optimistic that the two countries could
build a new and healthy relationship.

Leaders in both countries hoped they could contribute to regional
stability, promote prosperity, and work together against militancy and
terrorism. Instead, despite great effort, we've seen increasing mistrust
and skepticism on both sides. Now, as President Obama begins his second
term, Pakistanis prepare for an election that, if it proceeds as hoped,
would mark the successful completion of a civilian term of office and
the continuation of civilian institutional rule, flawed as Pakistani
democratic institutions might be.

In both capitals, the high hopes of 2008-2009 have given way to a
more sober mood. We now should engage realistic assessments of what we
can do. Let me suggest how we can assess the last four years, and look
forward to progress in the next four and beyond.

First, the common task of fighting militancy and terrorism remains a
priority for both countries. I believe it is a mistake for America to
view Pakistan exclusively through the optic of our efforts in
Afghanistan, as we've too frequently done in recent years. And yet as
the situation changes in Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond, we need to
marry realistic timelines and policy decisions with the priorities of
Pakistani officials. This means continuing with the successful formula
of high-level meetings that combine military and civilian leaders from
both countries ("three-on-three"), talking together about military and
civilian topics, so that joint decisions on security issues are not
hampered, or even crippled, by institutional barriers in either
government.

Second, we need to admit that the ambitious effort to balance our
commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and building
prosperity has not been as successful as we would have liked. The
Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation, which generously authorized $7.5 billion dollars in civilian assistance to the post-Musharraf state for five years, has not had the impact its sponsors (and its implementers, such as the late Richard Holbrooke) had hoped.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is crucial that the
Pakistani leadership step up and admit its failings rather than simply
accuse the Americans of inefficiency or bad faith. Pakistan's
institutions, from federal ministries to provincial educational to
health providers, need drastic reform -- and so does the fiscal
structure, which through anti-democratic favoring of feudal interests,
cripples public faith in Pakistani democracy. Any American assistance
from now on should require Pakistani leadership to reform; and it may be
that Pakistani calls for an end to the dependency trap of traditional
assistance are right.

If we agree on these two ideas -- that we must continue a reasonable,
clear-eyed cooperation on counterterrorism informed by (but not defined
by) what happens in Afghanistan, and that we must reassess civilian
assistance to encourage reform of Pakistani institutions that allow for
truly democratic Pakistani leadership -- then we have a strong start. The
next step would be to break away from the tyranny of negative
narratives that limit bilateral ties and reinforce the idea that we have
a bad marriage or codependent relationship. If we can detach ourselves
from these comfortable but lazy assumptions, we can open the door to new
approaches. I suggest two.

First, wherever possible, we should not limit ourselves to bilateral
solutions. Difficult as it may sound, there can be no solution to our
long-term security needs in the region without paying attention to
neighboring countries. Former Secretary Clinton began
the process of looking at post-2014 security arrangements in a regional
setting; she also emphasized that these arrangements are not sustainable
without stronger regional economic relationships.

This regional approach should continue. We cannot discuss Pakistan
without thinking about India, China, and Turkey, their interests, and
the roles they may play in the future. Sure, it is more complicated, but
it is also more realistic, and helps bury the "viceroy obsession" so
prevalent in Pakistan today.

Second, wherever possible, we should not limit ourselves to
government-to-government initiatives. My experience in Pakistan
convinced me that Pakistanis admire American business practices,
educational achievements, and cultural vitality; our abysmally low
polling numbers in Pakistan are almost exclusively the result of their
perceptions (fair or not) of our security policies.

Now, it should not be our goal simply to be loved, and we may need to
make decisions in our security posture that aren't popular to some
people abroad. That being the case, we should understand the limitations
of polling data and start encouraging the long-term contact of
institutions in both countries to promote a positive impact over years,
even decades. American businesses can bring global practices to
Pakistan. American universities have traditional links to Pakistani
counterparts that need to be rebuilt. Pakistan and America have
extraordinarily dynamic philanthropic traditions that work together. The
growing energy and power of Pakistan's unruly but promising media is an
opportunity for our media as well.

Now is not the time to turn away from Pakistan, despite the
frustrations of recent years. Rather, let's take a good look at why the
last four years did not work out as we wanted, and share that honest
assessment with our Pakistani partners. In addition, let's make sure we
use approaches (beyond bilateral) and tools (beyond governmental) that
play to our strengths. Finally, a little patience and generosity -- on
both sides -- will certainly be required to heal the cuts and abrasions
we have both suffered in recent years.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.